User talk:70.26.38.100

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2024 Holon stabbing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's all a matter of personal opinion, who is actually "there illegally"? The Israelis or Palestinians, from an historical view or a modern day view? I'm just curious, what is your stance? Consider this discussion blog of Haaretz. It confirms that the phrase "entered Israel illegally" was used. 70.26.38.100 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further down in the article it already says The perpetrator was Ammar Razek Kamel Odeh, a 35-year-old Palestinian man from the West Bank town of Salfit, who entered Israel without a permit, with sources. This is sufficient. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, will you restore my edit? 70.26.38.100 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because what was there before you edited is sufficient, as I said, and to use "illegal migrant" would be undue emphasis and, depending on how one interprets the word "migrant", possibly incorrect. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Texas (disambiguation). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at What Went Down (song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Olympic Stadium (Montreal), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kamron Schmitt (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the year of an image to an infobox? How is it vandalism? Do explain. 70.26.38.100 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was highly unconstructive and wasted a lot of administrator time and effort resolving. That includes responding to your ingenuous denial of wrongdoing. Stop, or you WILL be blocked from editing. Kamron Schmitt (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I apply to have YOU BLOCKED for abuse of your admin privileges? Thanks. 70.26.38.100 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Hollaback Girl. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Yarra River did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions.

I really appreciate the enthusiasm, but because the topic of this page intersects with a contentious topic, the Arbitration Committee has decided that IPs and users who are not extended confirmed cannot participate. You can still make edit requests provided they are uncontroversial, like fixing obvious typos or grammar. I strongly suggest you login or create an account and gain some experience with Wikipedia's policies elsewhere before you dive into this topic. Awesome Aasim 12:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discussion somewhere showing that adding {{Internet history timeline}} to numerous articles is a good idea? I suspect not, and that timeline is far too long and generic to be added at more than a couple of places. Please stop adding it while others consider the issue. Mass editing of any kind, without clear consensus, is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added ten more while I wrote the above. You will be blocked if you continue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that I have added the infobox to are listed in the very infobox itself. Are you interested in internet history? Do you have comprehensive knowledge? 70.26.38.100 (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My attributes are not relevant other than that I am an administrator with a responsibility to reduce disruption. You are correct that a navigation box that lists a particular article would normally be placed in that article. However, navboxes go at the bottom of the article and are of a reasonable length. The timeline is extremely long and there must be consensus in advance before it is added to multiple articles. The consensus does not have to be extensive. For example, a clear message at an appropriate wikiproject which was displayed for, say, a week would be enough even if there were no replies, on the WP:SILENCE principle. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding this indiscriminately to articles such as Google Docs. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has become spammy, because it was added to articles where it is not obviously needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that I have added the infobox to are listed in the very infobox itself. Not all of them are; neither OpenVMS nor classic Mac OS are, but you added the infobox to those pages. Yes, both of those OSes support a TCP/IP stack, but that's not sufficient to make the infobox relevant to them. Guy Harris (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, in one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Specifically, links to redirects are not broken, and do not need to be "fixed". Remsense ‥ 论 04:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Phil Ramone. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically, please see MOS:OVERLINK, MOS:SOB, and MOS:REPEATLINK. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at How to Have Sex, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Again, please especially read MOS:OVERLINK. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Archaeological excavation. It is not necessary to avoid redirects. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, such as at Market (economics), despite being clearly and strongly warned against doing so above. You have responded at this talk page so you clearly know of its existence. You've also received warnings for many other things. Graham87 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And re this edit at Landfill: what was up with that? It's puzzling, to say the least. Graham87 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is commonly used as a phrase in the British English vernacular. 70.26.38.100 (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets no relevant Google results. Graham87 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But fly-tipping does. 70.26.38.100 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different concept as shown by the link target on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

70.26.38.100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are more edits that I need to make to the news portal section. Also, how long am I blocked for, concerning the block applied? 70.26.38.100 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A month. Graham87 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]